[mrbill]

I think the reason VORP looks so unattractive as an MVP metric is how it leaves no room for discussion. It's cold and calculated by a very specific formula that leaves no room for feelings or stories or heroics. Sportswriters would have nothing to do if VORP was how we voted awards.

VORP also misses out on fielding. Clearly last year, Ryan Braun outhit Tulowitzki, but his fielding was so much worse and at a much less important position, I wouldn't have given him the ROY. WARP is a better stat, but of course fielding is hard to quantify and weigh alongside hitting stats.

RBI and runs though, that just goes along with "must play for a winning team" as a poor reason to give someone an award. In the NBA, maybe that's a better reason, there's only 5 guys on the floor and the MVP would likely make his team a winner. In baseball, maybe 40 AB a season can you actually drive yourself in, the other 600+, you need your teammates to do something too. And you can score all you want, if your pitching sucks, you still lose.

I feel like you still can have healthy debates using VORP in place of RBI/Runs and make a better decision about the individual who made the most impact on his team in a season.